Judgment :- No case is made out by the petitioners even for an admission of the revision in hands of this Court. 2. Pending the suit in O.S.No.462 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Salem, an application in I.A.No.845 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners herein stating that they are to be added in the pending suit as parties/defendants. An order of dismissal of that application is the subject matter of challenge in this revision. 3. From the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge, it would be quite evident that one Ananthalakshmiammal filed O.S.No.110/82 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Salem, for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. Though she came out successful, on appeal by the opposite party in A.S.No.63/86, the said judgment was set aside, and Ananthalakshmiammal lost her suit. Thereafter, she filed a second appeal in S.A.No.858/91 before this Court. Pending the second appeal, Ananthalakshmiammal died. Thus, the second appeal became abated. Thereafter, the instant suit was filed by the opposite party in that suit namely the defendant therein, seeking permanent injunction against the defendant herein. 4. The only contention put forth by the petitioners before the Courts below and equally here also is that the defendant in the instant suit is one of the sons of Ananthalakshmiammal; that all others are the legal representatives of Ananthalakshmiammal; that they should have been added as parties as they are necessary parties to be imp leaded for the proper adjudication of the subject matter, and hence, they have got to be added. The lower Court on contest dismissed the application and in the considered opinion of this Court, rightly too. 5. The said Ananthalakshmiammal who came out successful before the trial Court in the earlier suit, lost the battle in the first appeal, and thereafter, it was she who filed the second appeal in S.A.No.858/91. Pending the same, Ananthalakshmiammal died, and thus, the appeal became abated. While so, now the present plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant stating that he is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. Pending the same, Ananthalakshmiammal died, and thus, the appeal became abated. While so, now the present plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant stating that he is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the plaintiff. While the cause of action was only against that particular defendant and also the relief’s are sought for against him, no question of adding these petitioners as parties-defendants would arise, since it was not a suit filed against the legal representatives of Ananthalakshmiammal, but only a particular person who is the defendant found therein. Needless to say that a party has got to be imp leaded in a given case provided his presence is necessary for the effective adjudication of the case and without whose presence, an adjudication cannot be effectively done, and only then, he could be added as party. If this test is applied to the case on hand, it can be well stated that the petitioners are not necessary parties to the present suit. Accordingly, the application was rightly dismissed by the lower Court. Hence, the order of the lower Court is sustained. 6. In the result, this civil revision is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed.